• hayvan@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 day ago

    Calling it “wrong orbit” is misleading (albeit in a hilarious way). They failed to reach the target altitude/velocity and released the satellite into a useless orbit. It’s the same as dropping a package into a ditch and calling it “delivered to the wrong location”. Technically correct but not really what it means.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Stupid shit like this is more common than you might realise.

    A commercial geostationary satellite launched to cover Australia and New Zealand had its dishes installed incorrectly, causing spot footprints to cover the two countries to be incorrectly aligned.

    As a result a whole lot of satellite dishes on the ground had to be adjusted to “fix” the problem.

    Source: I had a ground station that was affected.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Not similar to this event though. This is a rocket failure that couldn’t complete its mission. It wasn’t “delivered to the wrong orbit” because it wasn’t delivered. It was released into the wrong orbit because the rocket couldn’t deliver it to its destination. The satellite is no longer in orbit I think.

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      What would they gain from that? Insurance won’t cover lost income from a dysfunctional satellite. Also pretty sure if you could get insurance it’d be extremely expensive for a launch on an unproven rocket.

          • Nighed@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            It’s a numbers game on rocket reliability. You pay slightly more for your launch, but if it goes bang, you get a big cheque from the insurance.

            For the known launchers, their reliability is pretty known, and newer (or recently exploded) launchers often give cheap/free launches while they are effectively testing things - helps make up for the pricy insurance.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                That’s literally what insurance is. They bet bad thing doesn’t happen. If it does, they pay you. If it doesn’t, they keep their money plus what you paid them.

              • athatet@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Because it’s profitable? I typed “space insurance” into google and it gave me webpages for companies who offer space insurance.

                Why would you think that it wouldn’t be a thing?

                • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  I didn’t say it’s not a thing. I’m saying what would be the point of using it for fraud? You don’t make money from a failed launch.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    One of the richest men ever thinks he’s going to be the king of Mars one day and this is the absolute air ball he puts up. Fucking clown show timeline strikes again.

    • burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      FWIW Blue Origin and Amazon are not the same, despite the Bezos connection. Blue does have a contract to launch a bunch of Amazon satellites, but so does everyone else with a working rocket (and some without).

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Used to deliver. Two small, neighboring cities have a lot of their major streets named the same: chestnut, maple, things like that. Completely different streets, they never came anywhere close to each other. One city used three digit house numbers, the other used four digit numbers.

      Very often, I would get sent to places 1234 Maple in Threeland, or 567 Chestnut in Fourville. Addresses that I knew didn’t exist, but the app would still place a pin and expect me to be there.

      After a few confusing attempts, I learned that if I tried to deliver to the intended address, I’d get a violation. If I just “delivered” to the GPS pin, I’d get paid.

      Got so much free food…

  • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Capitalist Vs state owned? Or just way too fresh to the field? NASA had catastrophes seemingly owing to pressure, just as these companies are operating under.